Acknowledging that there is no publiic good to have you walking around with 30 round clips and that the tradeoff of you getting off on the thrill of that just might not be worth the danger of same maniac using the same to slaughter people.

columbia wrote:Acknowledging that there is no publiic good to have you walking around with 30 round clips and that the tradeoff of you getting off on the thrill of that just might not be worth the danger of same maniac using the same to slaughter people.

I do not agree that there is no public good to “30 round clips.” I do not “get off” on carrying a firearm. I do not agree with any of your premises. In fact, I believe that so-called assault weapons cannot be banned under Heller because that case held that the Second Amendment protects the ownership and possession of guns “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and in fact millions of semi-automatic rifles are owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Moreover, while the Court in Heller did say that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” that does not mean that a gun ban would be constitutional as a “reasonable regulation,” as otherwise the Court would have held that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns was such a reasonable regulation. An exception cannot swallow the rule.

columbia wrote:Based on your posting history on the subject, it seems to rise to the level of a fetish.Maybe it's not and you just have a PR problem like the NRA?

I completely and vehemently object to this.

You clearly aren't a guy guy. That's fine, I have no basic quarrel with that. But you are projecting your viewpoint on to Shyster's words and coming away with a completely ill-informed view.

People who like guns - who enjoy collecting them, who admire them as works of art and engineering, who choose to wear them on their bodies as implements of defense - do not worship guns. They do not get together every first Thursday of the month to masturbate over the newest issue of Guns & Ammo. They do not fantasize about guns. They view guns ad a tool, nothing more. Some - the overwhelming minority - use them as implements of fear and terror. But the vast majority - I'd guess well over 90% of gun owners - take the responsibility that comes with gun ownership as almost sacred. I don't believe in god, but if he/she does exist I'm pretty sure they'd want me to keep the muzzle pointed downrange and to check the breach every time someone handed me a gun.

Honestly, have you ever been a part of a gun safety or shooting class? I cannot tell you the number of times instructors press certain points home..... ALL GUNS ARE LOADED.... DO NOT point a gun at something you aren't willing and able to destroy....

And I think it is partly because of this basic element of not getting it that results in many of the 'pro' and 'con' advocates simply speaking past each other. The cons can't get past the seeming absurdity of 30-round magazines, and the pros can't understand why anyone would question why a lawful citizen wouldn't want a 30-round magazine available to defend their sovereignty. (I guess that latter point might be more accurately characterized as wondering why it's anyone else's business what one thinks is appropriate in determining how to protect themselves.)

You seem eager to call out certain elements that illustrate either an inherent bias or a fundamental lack of understanding of just how seriously most gun owners approach their responsibilities. But it's definitely one or the other of those two. The former is, of course, out of bounds. The later, if that be the case, is..... alterable.

Pitt87 wrote:Just looked at my first paycheck of the new year an wanted thank our President for the pay cut today. No tax increases on middle class didn't even last long enough to be inaugurated for a second term.

What short memories people have. The GOP House was against extending the payroll tax holiday to 2012 but it made it through eventually and neither the Democrats or the GOP had plans to extend it in 2013.

No need to be indirect, but you should be sure you fully understand my comment before you assume I was referring to the payroll tax... I consider myself a pretty meticulous tax planner, so I was prepared for a check-based increase. What I was not prepared for was virtually no consideration in the middle-income rates. It is this administrations' tax policy, that, over the last 4 years, has targeted those that they claim to protect. Payroll tax is one component of the total tax that Barack Obama committed both before and after the election -- check the tape, to use his words -- to rallying his party around the in support of the middle class' 'share', only to completely abandon them in negotiations. As a result, revenues are up, spending cuts have been suspended, and everyone with a job, even those that are careful tax planners like myself, have a nice wet chunk taken out of their gross pay with little recourse to make up the deficit.... at least those that have higher rates aren't impacted until their first quarter payment is due...

Publicly, he espoused a commitment to cutting total taxes on 160 million Americans in the 'middle class', yet he managed to levy an immediate cashflow out of those paychecks immediately, while artfully neglecting to resolve the tax issue for the group that can least likely absorb a 2% tax hike.

I'm having a hard time understanding which tax you are saying has gone up on you.

tifosi77 wrote:And I think it is partly because of this basic element of not getting it that results in many of the 'pro' and 'con' advocates simply speaking past each other. The cons can't get past the seeming absurdity of 30-round magazines, and the pros can't understand why anyone would question why a lawful citizen wouldn't want a 30-round magazine available to defend their sovereignty. (I guess that latter point might be more accurately characterized as wondering why it's anyone else's business what one thinks is appropriate in determining how to protect themselves.).

So where does it stop?Are you cool with the guy next door having a bazooka? Maybe a tank or an armed drone patrolling the neighborhood?

You clearly aren't a guy guy. That's fine, I have no basic quarrel with that. But you are projecting your viewpoint on to Shyster's words and coming away with a completely ill-informed view.

People who like guns - who enjoy collecting them, who admire them as works of art and engineering, who choose to wear them on their bodies as implements of defense - do not worship guns. They do not get together every first Thursday of the month to masturbate over the newest issue of Guns & Ammo. They do not fantasize about guns. They view guns ad a tool, nothing more. Some - the overwhelming minority - use them as implements of fear and terror. But the vast majority - I'd guess well over 90% of gun owners - take the responsibility that comes with gun ownership as almost sacred. I don't believe in god, but if he/she does exist I'm pretty sure they'd want me to keep the muzzle pointed downrange and to check the breach every time someone handed me a gun.

Honestly, have you ever been a part of a gun safety or shooting class? I cannot tell you the number of times instructors press certain points home..... ALL GUNS ARE LOADED.... DO NOT point a gun at something you aren't willing and able to destroy....

And I think it is partly because of this basic element of not getting it that results in many of the 'pro' and 'con' advocates simply speaking past each other. The cons can't get past the seeming absurdity of 30-round magazines, and the pros can't understand why anyone would question why a lawful citizen wouldn't want a 30-round magazine available to defend their sovereignty. (I guess that latter point might be more accurately characterized as wondering why it's anyone else's business what one thinks is appropriate in determining how to protect themselves.)

You seem eager to call out certain elements that illustrate either an inherent bias or a fundamental lack of understanding of just how seriously most gun owners approach their responsibilities. But it's definitely one or the other of those two. The former is, of course, out of bounds. The later, if that be the case, is..... alterable.

Just thought this needed to be repeated. I think tif makes a very eloquent case here as to why gun owners take such offense to being demonized like this.